UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
The point I was making is that if they created bad ports intentionally they could easily drive players to their platforms.The PlayStation port of X-Men vs. Street Fighter was different due to technical limitations of the console compared to the Saturn. The Saturn's strength was in 2D graphics since that is what it was originally designed for, while the PlayStation was stronger with 3D. There are only outliers that went the other way like Symphony of the Night because Konami didn't put the resources into adapting it to the Saturn's unique hardware configuration. If they had, the Saturn version of SotN may very well have been the definitive version of the game.
The technical limitations of the gen 8 and gen 9 consoles is obvious. I don't understand why you're bringing up Cyberpunk 2077 as an example as purposeful degradation for platform favoritism when all of them ran like shit on release.
The same explanation for Resident Evil 4: The Gamecube was technically superior to the PlayStation 2. Compromises needed to be made to get it to run acceptably on the PS2.
It’s not hard or expensive to make a port badly.
And with all the coverage regarding performance and visuals, they could easily make XBox/Windows the way to play all games (which by the way is precisely what they want). Therefore their promise regarding keeping CoD multi platform is meaningless.
That is besides the point. I’m not interested in Sony buying all of these companies either.Sony doesn't have the capital to make these kinds of acquisitions. I'm sure if Sony could match Microsoft's cash reserves that they would jump at the chance to buy out large publishing houses like Zenimax and Activision.
Because it does give return on investment.This is ridiculous. Businesses streamline all the time. MacOS is not widely supported by game developers because the customer base isn't there. 60% of the global operating system market is on Windows, and 90+% of gamers are on Windows. Why waste resources developing a version of your game for an audience that isn't going to give you any return on that investment?
They were cut not because they don’t make money, but because the amount of money vs resources spent isn’t as much as on other platforms. Their ROI is higher having devs make more items in an e-shop than porting the game to another platform.
But it’s a chicken and egg problem there isn’t it?
Suffice to say if people could play more games on Mac, then they would. Which has been proven over and over again. I’m thankful some companies like Larian remain open and I can play their games on more than 1-2 platforms.
Games like DX:MD, Tomb Raider series, and Prey came to macOS and are even available on the Mac App Store (in addition to places like GoG and Steam). I don’t have numbers but I’m going to guess they’ve more than paid for themselves many times over on Mac. Especially considering it’s just a port that is required and not exclusivity.
PC is not their hardware or their software. They do not have any form of controlling interest unlike Microsoft.None of Sony's PC ports support Linux or MacOS, either. Sony also doesn't support hardware other than their own. The only first-party game released on Xbox consoles is a baseball game that was ported at the demand of the license holder.
Okay. But at least they still come. I’ve waited 6 years now and Doom 2016 hasn’t come to Mac. I think most people don’t mind the wait. If they did then it wouldn’t be worth it to port to PC at all in the first place. The fact that the games sell very well shows that staggered release is still more than successful.It's "definitive" because Sony is holding their games back for 1-2 years from PC. And why are they holding them back? To sell more PlayStation consoles. Jim Ryan explicitly stated as such.
XBox was explicitly created just so Microsoft could control more of the gaming space. Because apparently PC wasn’t enough for them.
Right. Contradictory to your statement above.Sony doesn't make their own PC operating system, and going back to the above, more than 90% of all gamers use Windows. You go where the customers are, and Sony has happily reported on the success of their move of putting games on PC.
Right. And Microsoft wants all of the pie. They want to control gaming on all devices. Or are you not aware that that is why XBox exists in the first place. Or cloud gaming for phones?Again, you're trying to make a distinction between Sony and Microsoft that doesn't exist. Sony is supporting themselves to make more money, just like Microsoft. Neither Microsoft or Sony are going to start widely supporting the competing console because then nobody would have a reason to choose one over the other. It's a different market and business compared to PC gaming. Encompassing both business under the umbrella of video gaming is missing nuance in the difference between the customer bases and market.
Sony is not remotely in that place of power which you yourself acknowledged due to their, as you put it, “lack of money”. Which you don’t seem to understand is the problem. The issue is all of the control is going to one company through a Disney-esque control of IP.
If Microsoft can make the Xbox the definitive place to play console games, what with all the IP power and control they stand to be able to exert with the two biggest acquisitions ever, PlayStation ceases to exist.
And I would prefer no one to have it. I would prefer AB to be broken up and heck Zenimax which is now part of Microsoft to be broken up.
Are you not aware of how popular Battle.net is as a launcher? How many WoW subs there are? How many people even on this forum play D1/D2/D3/D4 or CoD? Or SC, or Overwatch? Because of its exclusivity and the fact that Blizzard games are on it, most gamers have the Battle.net launcher already.A lot of baseless assumptions are being made, here. Microsoft came back to Steam as most publishers do because that is where most of the customers are, and Steam has had continued growth ever since it was launched in 2004. Microsoft's revenue would drop through the floor if they ditched Steam again, even with the powerhouse publishing houses they now own.
There are zero Blizzard games on Steam just as an FYI. Blizzard became massive all without Steam.
It is inarguably the second most used launcher. With Battle.net, it’s more than conceivable that Microsoft won’t need Valve.
Last edited: